Recent Comments

Prev  137  138  139  140  141  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  149  150  151  152  Next

Comments 7201 to 7250:

7201. Richard13699 at 21:57 PM on 8 May 2020
      The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations
      

      I took a quick look at this download. 

      I am amazed that a website that promotes the scientific approach should be so disparaging of people who seriously and for good reason, doubt the officlal US government conspiracy theory behind 9/11.

      If you are going to (correctly of course) require that information and data here are factual and peer reviewed, how can you promote a pamphlet that applies this pejorative label to those who have applied similar principles to the clearly contradictory, often scientifically impossible "official explanation" around 9/11?

      And don't starat me on the Kennedy assassination - and magic bullets!  

7202. SirCharles at 21:51 PM on 8 May 2020
      The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations
      

      BTW, I never call them "conspiracy theories". I call them conspiracy hypotheses or just what they are: conspiracy myths.

7203. SirCharles at 21:43 PM on 8 May 2020
      The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations
      

      Great! Many thanks for that. Will share widely.

7204. One Planet Only Forever at 12:06 PM on 8 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      niglej and alea (and anyone else interested),

      The aspect of the movie I sort of agree with is the need to reduce the energy used by people to live decent lives. But the conversion of all energy production to renewable sources needs to be achieved even if that is "more expensive" energy. And the energy being "more expensive" cannot be allowed to be an excuse to reduce assistance to the less fortunate to ensure that every human lives at least abasic decent life (ending poverty).

      Everybody's actions add up to become the future. The lack of helpful corrective actions, and lack of support for helpful corrective leadership, by people through the past 30 years needs to be understood to be inexcusable. It has added up to become the much larger harm done to the future generations (which includes people today, because today is the future from actions through the past 30 years) and the much more challenging correction of developed behaviours today.

      Almost every suggestion I made to reduce impact can be acted on today. No new technical developments are required. And none were needed 30 years ago for people to behave less harmfully. And that understanding existed long before the makers of this fiction-filled documentary made-up their stories.

      A significant factor keeping people from adopting the changes of behaviour that would help reduce the amount of climate change harm is that the better behaviour is not Cheaper, Easier, or More Enjoyable. Those are poor excuses to Not Behave Better.

      And what can clearly be understood, can be a Common Sense, is that competitions for impressions of superiority relative to Others based on popularity, profitability, and materialism related impressions will develop harmful results unless the harmful options are kept out of the competition or those things are: made to be more expensive, harder to do, or collectively understood to be undesirable behaviour.

      Developing a liking for harmful activity also develops powerful motivation to resist correcting the bahaviour.

      Somehow I evaded the socializing development influences of consumption and materialism economic competition even though I grew up immersed in it. Long ago I developed an appreciation for the precursors to current day understandings like the Sustainable Development Goals and other "sustainability focused" Governing Objectives that have been developed. There are many well identified needs to correct harmful unsustainable developments.

      The 1972 Stockholm Conference was the first formal acknowledgment by global leadership that sustainability of human activity required Governing to make corrections of Harmful unsustainable things that had already developed and Helpful Governing of the direction of new developments. That awareness and understanding has been increased and improved since then, particularly the comprehensive set of Objectives that are presented as the Sustainable Development Goals.

      My constantly developing focus is "Expanded awareness and improved understanding applied to ensure no harm is done to Others and help develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity".

      That includes the detailed discussion of the documentary as it relates to that overarching governing objective of the importance of helping achieve and improve on the SDGs and the related effort to limit the harm being done, that hopefully Common Sense Meaning of Life.

      Every Individual's actions that have impact outside of the Individual add up to become the collective future. So it is important to consider cases where a person identifies something Helpful that they believe is a result of their actions if their actions are also understandably Harmful.

      It is obvious that an Individual should try to be more helpful to themselves than they are harmful to themselves. That can be hard to do in a socioeconomic system with misleading marketing that is allowed to tempt people to believe and do things that may not really be helpful to them or Others and could actually be very harmful (tobacco and alcohol marketing is just one example). What is harder for many people to accept is that that Personal Focused basis for decision making is not valid when the Individual's actions have affects beyond or outside of the Individual. That can lead to harmful unsustainable activities becoming popular and profitable.

      It needs to become Common Sense that it is not legitimate to do an evaluation summing up perceptions of Helpfulness and Harmfulness to Others. That type of evaluation is only valid for an Individual's actions that have affects restricted to the Individual. A person's actions only affecting themselves is rare in any society. The majority of an Individual's actions have affects beyond the Individual. In those cases an individual's actions need to Not be Harmful to Others, and the Individual should aspire to be Helpful to Others. A person who benefits from harmful actions should not get credit for also being helpful. What a sustainable society and economy needs is for Harmfulness to Others to be minimized (hopefully being zero) while, in parallel, helpfulness to Others is increased. One exception is medical interventions, in which case there is a need to evaluate the helpfulness minus harmfulness of the intervention and only apply it if there is expected to be a net-benefit.

      That understanding, or justified improvements of it, needs to become the Common Sense that governs everything that all humans do.

      Once a person acquires and accepts that Common Sense they will almost certainly see that there are many people who have developed many motivations to resist acquiring and accepting that Common Sense. They will appreciate that they themselves had to overcome many developed beliefs, and resist many temptations, as they pursued the realization of that Common Sense. And they will also have had to limit and correct many of the activities that they had developed a liking for.

      That personal experience then helps recognise the many ways that harmful unsustainable activity become popular and profitable and resist being limited or corrected.

      The economic understanding is fairly straight forward. The competition for popularity and profit can only be expected to produce sustainable helpful results if the vast majority participating are Governed by "Expanded awareness and improved understanding applied to ensure no harm is done to Others and help develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity". That majority needs to have the power to Govern and Limit the behaviour of those who will not responsibly self-govern that way. More harmful and less sustainable ways of doing things can be easier and quicker ways to "Win the Competition". Unless those activities are excluded from the competition, or cannot become popular or profitable, they will end up Harmfully Winning a Lot for People who do not care to limit how they Enjoy Their Winning in Their lifetime (a repugnant result of Ungoverned Unlimited Competition in Pursuit of Happiness).

      Another way to say it is that competitions for impressions of superiority can develop very harmful results, especially when they are played out in competitions for popularity and profitability. Pursuit of popularity and profit have undeniably developed harmful unsustainable activities. That is mainly because the more harmful and less sustainable ways of doing things are easier and cheaper. But an additional harmful influence is misleading marketing, promotion that does not more fully inform consumers about the unsustainability or harmfulness of what they are being tempted to want. That misleading marketing can even make people resist becoming more aware and understanding of how harmfully unsustainable the things they have developed a desire and liking for actually are. The result is a system that results in the development of harmful unsustainable activity because it is cheaper, easier and more easily made to appear desirable. And that type of system can clearly be seen to also develop powerful resistance to correction of harmful unsustainable activity that becomes popular or profitable.

      So a major problem is competition for impressions of superiority relative to others based on popularity and profitability not being effectively governed and limited by expanded awareness and improved understanding applied to help develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity.

      Achieving and improving on the Sustainable Development Goals will require corrections of the developed socioeconomic-political systems, not just corrections of developed economic activity. And many people can be expected to powerfully resist that type of correction occurring. Allowing a Correction of awareness and understanding is understood to be heading down the "slippery slope" towards corrections of the existing systems.

      Game On. Keep on Expanding Awareness and Improving Understanding and Sustainable Improvements have an increased chance of developing.

7205. nigelj at 07:46 AM on 8 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      alea @31, I admire your efforts to cut the carbon footprint, and I understand the frustrations and philisophical dilemmas.

      This is how I rationalise the thing to myself, and my own philosophy. I have cut my own carbon footprint somewhat, although not to the same extent as you. My approach is based around the fact that the IPCC plan to mitigate climate change essentially specifies that the "heavy lifting" be done with renewable energy, (especially a new electricity grid) but that this cannot deal with all the issues, so we also need 1)negative emissions technologies and 2)to reduce our own carbon footprints and energy consumption. Given that renewables energy can do the heavy lifting, maybe around 75% we obviously dont have to reduce our energy consumption to near zero, and I have taken a 25% reduction as being appropriate.

      So I'm certainly prepared to play my part. I drive a small fuel efficient car and will buy an electric car at some stage. I mostly use public transport so the car is not a priority. I have an efficient heater etc but in no way am I prepared to turn the thermostat right down to 12 degrees in winter, its just too cold for me even with an extra sweatshirt, and goes beyond a 25% reduction in my energy use. I fly much less than I used to, but will still do some flying.

      Now if the system is unable or unwilling to provide a new energy grid, Im not prepared to go beyond moderate 25% reductions in my carbon footprint and use of energy. While the climate problem is serious, its not serious enough for me to reduce my lifestyle back to that of a third world farmer, and I will not severely punish myself, or become a sacrificial lamb for the failings of the wider system to provide a renewable energy grid. I am prepared play my reasonable part, and we all need to do that, but nothing more, and my conscience is clear. The heavy lifting has to come form renewable energy.

      Not saying everyone has to approach it like me. Just saying how I do it.

      You make a good point about people needing to see tangible benefits for reducing carbon footprints. I tend to concentrate on promoting lifestyle changes which do have tangible benefits, eg flying a bit less save people money. We could probably get our energy use down 25% in ways that do have tangible benefits.

      I see little point in promoting extreme things that people are incredibly unlikely to do, like absolutely massive reductions in energy use, because it wastes my energy. I also don't waste my time promoting crazy stuff, like giving up on all or most technology because its all allegedly unsustainable. We need a more specific and focused approach. 

      A lot of the general envirinmental issue should really be about reducing waste. National Geographic march 2020 edition has an excellent article on this.

      Moderator Response:

      [DB]  Fixed typo.

7206. alea at 20:52 PM on 7 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      nigelj@26

      "Yes true about the low hanging fruit. It may surprise you, but I do think all the other solutions you list are realistic and people may yet adopt them better.But M Moores solutions require we go much further than that. Remember his solution to climate change is lower population growth and less use of energy. Full stop."

       

      Thing is I can see that the extreme advocacy of living to the true definition of sustainability (as put forward by one contributor on RealClimate), and that literally doing that is impossible without hardship, and people will resist it, could both be right.

      I have had a go at making significant inroads into my carbon footprint. I cut right down on meat intage, rented an allotment, turned the thermostat down to 12C in winter and compensated with a hoodie (UK winters are too cold to dispence with space heating completely), don't buy anything that I can't logically justify, use an energy provider which invests in renewable energy, avoid flying, use the train to visit family (240 miles away), cycle all local journeys, and worked up to being able to cycle to work daily (19 mile round trip with hills). I even went as far as going car free for about three years. The latter worked until I was hit by a careless driver and nearly died in hospital. My experience taught me that going beyond the low hanging fruit is tough, and is made worse with the system punishing me for taking more sustainable options. Visiting family by train costs over £100. Driving costs £45 in fuel. Which mode of transport would most people choose? I can't transport hundreds of kg of manure to my allotment for soil improvement, but now have a car again which solves that problem. Choosing a bicycle as my primary mode of transport means taking costs, in the form of limited mobility and increased vulnerability (externalised by motorists), because everyone else is still driving, but the tangible benefits are not immediately apparent, there are lagged benefits in the form of reduced financial cost and increased cardiovascular health.

      I can't see how you can convince people en-masse to make lifestyle changes that make life less convenient or enjoyable without a tangible benefit, yet ultimately we have to do something to knock down emissions, and that something (or combination of somethings) is going to have to go beyond the easy stuff. This is where I haven't come across a decent solution, although cleaning up energy production is a good start, how do you tell businesses to stop having meetings requiring people to fly abroad, and use video conferencing instead, or stop people from buying consumer goods they don't need, or manufacture stuff to last so it doesn't need replacing as often, instead of either designing things to break just past the guarentee or telling people they need the latest model of xyz because..., or tell people to holiday locally instead of flying? Some of this could be done with regulation, but people don't like regulation beyond a certain point, and any democratic government that goes beyond that point will find themselves out of office next election.

      I guess I am looking for some hope (to combat despair), in the form of a step by step feasible method of transitioning to a significantly more sustainable way of living on a global scale, it doesn't have to be the purist version, your definition would be adequate.

7207. nigelj at 13:42 PM on 7 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      OPOF @29, I agree Gibbs and Moores suggestions of lower population growth and limiting energy consumption are so vague as to be useless. They also hand the denialists ammunition, because the denialists will just say all we have to do is limit population growth.

      "What have Moore/Gibbs been spending their time on since 2015? Why?And why did they make such an inaccurate and misleading production and release it on Earth Day in 2020?"

      They obviously did it on earth day for maximium exposure and to do maximum damage.  I dont know for  a fact what their motivations are but one of the reviews I read said that they believe that renewables are just a device for fat cat billionaures to make profits. That is enough for me to work out what their motivations are political. I dont need a better explanation. Its  similar to the way the denialists hate things like carbon taxes, so they attack climate science. 

      There are many valid  criticisms of badly behaved rich people, and capitalism, but Moores and Gibbs are just patently stupid ones. Some rich people will make a profit. So what? If we dont want that, then governments need to provide the funding or you have laws against excessive profiteering, but we don't go and rubbish renewables.

      I see you prefer to concentrate on lists of positive things we can do to reduce energy consumption. That should be our main focus, but its worth discussing the doco.

7208. One Planet Only Forever at 08:41 AM on 7 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      nigelj,

      I have not watched the movie. I have seen so many valid criticisms of its content that I see little point in watching it.

      But, base on the criticisms I have seen, I am skeptical about claims that Gibbs/Moore offer any descriptions of what should be done. Their "Reduce the Population" and "Reduce the energy consumption" points appear to have no supporting recommendations presented. They do not appear to say they mean. Their claims are like saying "Limit the harm done by climate change - without stating any limit", or "Make America Great Again". Pointless statements can be Harmfully Popular.

      The Sustainable Development Goals are robustly established current understandings. And they can continue to be improved upon. They were published in 2015. Moore and Gibbs seem to be unaware of the SDGs, or any of the massive amount of awareness and understanding that is the basis for the SDGs.

      What have Moore/Gibbs been spending their time on since 2015? Why? And why did they make such an inaccurate and misleading production and release it on Earth Day in 2020?

7209. nigelj at 07:59 AM on 7 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      One Planet Only Forever @27

      "I find arguments that a person should not be expected to live a "hair shirt lifestyle" to be poorly substantiated statements that can be tragically popular because people can make-up whatever they want as their understanding based on that type of 'brief marketing-style' claim. "

      Well ok true enough, but I have never siad that. What I've said is promoting that sort of extreme lifestyle change with its ultra low energy consumption is crazy, because the cure becomes worse than the climate problem, and few people are likely to do it, so I'm not going to waste my energy on promoting it. M Moores documentary falls into this category. He effectively leaves us without any plausible solution at all, so its hard to put a positive spin on this so called documentary.

      " Examples of what dramatic reduction of energy use can actually mean:"

      Yes sure, but this still falls short of what M Moore is claming in terms of reducing energy use. They are mostly useful ideas, and I promote many of the same ideas on various websites,  but not everyone can afford triple glazing etc or will be prepared to give up so much. I'm just saying we can probably cut our energy use by maybe 25%, 50% at best, so we still need a lot of renewable energy. This is pretty much the IPCC mitigation strategy.

       

       

7210. One Planet Only Forever at 02:59 AM on 7 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      nigelj,

      I find arguments that a person should not be expected to live a "hair shirt lifestyle" to be poorly substantiated statements that can be tragically popular because people can make-up whatever they want as their understanding based on that type of 'brief marketing-style' claim. That is one of the powerful ways that misleading marketing works.

      What is required is the Common Sense (what everybody recognizes as a valid understanding, like the Earth is a Ball) being the expectation that all of the most fortunate are to develop to be better examples of how everyone else should be aspiring to develop to live. And the Common Sense would include the expectation that all of the more fortunate would help expand awareness and improve understanding and apply it to help develop sustainable improvements, reduce harm done, for the benefit of humanity, local and distant, now and into the far future.

      Anyone perceived to be higher status who is not honoring that needs to be understood to be setting a harmful misleading example and deserving to lose status.

      Examples of what dramatic reduction of energy use can actually mean:

      • Buy more durable goods, including clothing. Learn as much as possible about the sustainability of how the stuff you buy is made. An example would be to be very careful about buying clothing made from fabrics that include elastic material content like spandex. This is hard to do because even cotton fabric production has a massive range of impact depending on how it is grown, harvested and processed. And Free Market Competition clearly cannot be expected to help consumers better understand things like that. In fact, the temptation and misleading marketing saturated consumer systems will do the opposite of better informing consumers.
      • Reduce the energy requirements associated with recreation and entertainment. Stop recreating and being entertained in ways that have higher energy demands. Stop enjoying the recreational use of things like power-boats, dirt-bikes, ATVs, ski-lifts and artificial ice surfaces. Even renewable electric powered entertainment and recreation should be limited to those who are, through no fault of their own, physically less able to do activities Unassisted.
      • Stop watching downloaded movies or streamed video content, especially higher definition content - Read text and look at pictures instead.
      • Reduce the energy needs for heating and cooling, at home, at work and where shopping. Have a smaller, better sealed home with double or triple glazed windows and well insulated surfaces. Have the most energy efficient heating and cooling possible, including having buried dense masses as part of the systems (masses heated by the cooling of the living space, or cooled by the heating of the living space).
      • Do not choose to live in a region that will have high requirements for heating or cooling. Population growth should only happen in regions where high energy requirements for heating or cooling, or things like energy intensive provision of fresh water, will not be required. People should be encouraged and helped to move away from regions where those energy requirements for decent living would be high.
      • Reduce the energy required for daily commutes. Work from home or live near where you work and shop near where you work or live. And walk or ride a bike as mush as possible rather than using renewable energy powered transportation.

      Things like that, combined with actions that actually reduce the energy required for producing, delivering and end-of-use recycling of consumed goods, would dramatically reduce energy demand, without anyone having to wear a Hair-Shirt or Live in a Cave or be too cold or too hot. But Lazy people or people who are "Self Gratification Needy" or "Impressions of Status relative to Others Needy" will not like that.

7211. RedBaron at 23:37 PM on 6 May 2020
      How does the way we define methane emissions impact the perception of its effects on global warming?
      

      There is a flaw not recognised by this essay as well. In order for any reduction in livestock production to have an effect on CH4 emissions, would depend on how that vegetative material that used to feed livestock decomposed and produced CH4.

      Burning the forage would still produce CH4. Composting the forage would still produce CH4. Letting the forage abiotically slow oxidize would still produce CH4. Replacing the livestock with wild herbivores would still produce CH4. Burying the forage in landfills would still produce CH4. 

      The primary factor in CH4 emissions is the amount and type of vegetative material being recycled, not necessarily whether a cow or a wild herbivore like a bison or elephant or termite does the recycling. Yes different routes vary slightly but not anywhere near what those figures suggest.

      As the %'s for all those are a little different, but not all that much as you might think. More importantly to all these factors is the methanotroph to methanogen ratio in any particular environment where decaying vegetative matter is present. And of course you already mentioned that fossil methane from natural gas increases CO2 levels like any fossil fuel even after it oxidizes, while recent produced methane from decaying/digesting vegetative material does not effect long term CO2 levels any more than exhaling CO2.

      For this reason I think your use of the 11-15% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions figure from  (Yusuf et al. 2012) and (Gerber 2013) to be very misleading, even if technically correct.

      The reason I say that is immediately after you state, 

      "If everyone became vegan overnight so that livestock associated methane emissions stopped, the temperature would decrease, and the warming caused by livestock methane would be undone in a relatively short time"

      This conclusion is not a given at all. Certainly not the "temperature would decrease" part. There is no way that even if we use the misleading 11%-15% figure, and even if we somehow figured a miraculous way to recycle all that vegetative material without producing any methane at all 0%, that 15% reductions in emissions would actually lower temperatures. Even 100% reductions in all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions wouldn't actually lower temperatures for a very long time. 15% reductions would certainly be helpful if possible, but it would slow warming, not actually cool.

      So while I do appreciate the point you were trying to make, the flaws in the Vegan argument go much deeper than you are exposing.

7212. BaerbelW at 18:34 PM on 6 May 2020
      Welcome to Skeptical Science
      

      Our Welcome Post was updated with a mention of the presentation "The Story of Skeptical Science" created for the General Assembly of the European Geosciences Union.

7213. william5331 at 06:46 AM on 6 May 2020
      How does the way we define methane emissions impact the perception of its effects on global warming?
      

      With a truly epic sudden release of methane from, say, the sub-sea deposits in the Arctic, methane is more like X140 as effective as Carbon dioxide as a GHG.  Another wrinkle in this story is that the methane is converted to Carbon dioxide by the OH radicals in the atmosphere.  A large sudded output of methane could depleat OH and leave the methane in the atmosphere much longer. https://mtkass.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-real-strength-of-methane.html

      Moderator Response:

      [DB] The potential for possible methane contributions to the atmosphere from clathrates/hydrates is better discussed here, and not in this post.

      Self-promotional advertising snipped.

7214. nigelj at 06:26 AM on 6 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      alea @24,

      "People don't mind picking the easy low hanging fruit like changing to energy efficient light bulbs or recycling, but try asking them to give up their three abroad holidays per year, or downsize their huge SUV or house, or turn the thermostat down in winter and put another layer on, go vegetarian or vegan, i.e. anything that makes life a little bit less comfortable."

      Yes true about the low hanging fruit. It may surprise you, but  I do think all the other solutions you list are realistic and people may yet adopt them better.But M Moores solutions require we go much further than that. Remember his solution to climate change is lower population growth and less use of energy. Full stop.

      That means much less use of energy. You would not just be turning down the themostat a bit and flying less, you would be turning the heater off most of the time and not flying at all and forget about owning a car. I take Moores solutions at face value, to show you how stupid they are. I cant second guess what he might really mean.

      We need a new energy grid. 

7215. david.brettell at 01:51 AM on 6 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      Watch a recent review of the movie at Just Have A Think

      - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmNjLHRAP2U

      Moderator Response:

      [DB] Hyperlinked URL

7216. John Hartz at 00:26 AM on 6 May 2020
      2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #18
      

      michael sweet: Thank you for drawing our attention to the PNAS study, Future of the human climate niche published on May 4. The news media is reporting its findings. For example...

      Unsuitable for 'human life to flourish': Up to 3B will live in extreme heat by 2070, study warns by Doyle Rice, USA Today, May 4, 2020

7217. alea at 00:26 AM on 6 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      nigelj22:

      He is right about one thing, that people do prioritise their individual desires, comfort and freedom over collective responsibility. People don't mind picking the easy low hanging fruit like changing to energy efficient light bulbs or recycling, but try asking them to give up their three abroad holidays per year, or downsize their huge SUV or house, or turn the thermostat down in winter and put another layer on, go vegetarian or vegan, i.e. anything that makes life a little bit less comfortable. That is at least partly why progress has been three fifths of bugger all over the last 50 years. If you want solutions, I don't have them, because they would very likely include policies/actions that you would claim to be unrealistic. The only suggestion I have is that we need to adapt to a new climate normal (increase robustness to the changes and extremes which are projected to happen over the next century), because even if we stopped anthropogenic emissions now, the CO2 in the atmosphere isn't going anywhere for centuries, but it is still going to be elevating the global temperature.

7218. alea at 00:17 AM on 6 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      “You use more fossil fuels [manufacturing renewables infrastructure] than you’re getting benefit from. You would have been better off burning the fossil fuels in the first place instead of playing pretend.”

      That sounds like the argument that cycling is no better for the environment than driving, because cycling requires calories from food, and steak processed from cattle reared by clearing the Brazilian rainforest has a very high carbon footprint. As arguments go, it really is a poor effort.

7219. michael sweet at 22:42 PM on 5 May 2020
      2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #18
      

      This PNAS study describes 1-3 billion people will be displaced by excessive temperature in the next 50 years by climate change.  Perhaps we do not need to worry about high population, climate change will affect how many children people have.  It does not seem to be a very good plan to me.

7220. SirCharles at 21:19 PM on 5 May 2020
      How does the way we define methane emissions impact the perception of its effects on global warming?
      

      There is multiple evidence that natural gas is no better than coal for mitigating climate change.

      Fracking and Shale Drilling Caused Spike in Climate-Warming Methane Pollution

      
      

7221. SirCharles at 21:01 PM on 5 May 2020
      How does the way we define methane emissions impact the perception of its effects on global warming?
      

      As the next decades are decicive whether we can keep global temperatures below 2°C - or even 1.5°C - we need to take the global warming potential (GWP) of methane on a 20-year timescale into account.

      

      In the US, Oil and gas is sector top source of methane emissions, ahead of agriculture.

7222. One Planet Only Forever at 08:05 AM on 5 May 2020
      How does the way we define methane emissions impact the perception of its effects on global warming?
      

      Good to see efforts to expand awareness and improve understanding regarding methane emissions from human food livestock operations.

      Every action to reduce negative human impacts is helpful. But ending the use of natural gas for fuel is still a far more helpful action than reducing livestock methane emissions.

      An additional consideration is that extracting and burning fossil methane 'Adds new carbon to the surface recycling environment, and primarily as new GHGs including fugitive emissions of methane from the extraction, transport and processing operations'.

7223. scaddenp at 07:46 AM on 4 May 2020
      Milankovitch Cycles
      

      There is a useful little summary of the Milankovic cycles in Physics Today, including the critical feedbacks

7224. TVC15 at 07:42 AM on 4 May 2020
      There is no consensus
      

      Eclectic @ 886

      Thank you for the suggested video. 

      I truly enjoy Potholer54's YouTube Channel.  He recently posted a Coronavirus: Science vs. politics video that was informative and entertaining.

7225. nigelj at 07:31 AM on 4 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      barryn56 

      "Climate change IS the default solution, since humans insist on individual 'freedom' above all else, and no-one wants to give up on the status quo (including everyone here, apparently), there's no need to do anything, because - if climate change predictions come to fruition, the human population will collapse, and everything will be fine.'

      Oh come on this is pure bulls**t. Many posts above suggest we be more sustainable, look at various alternative economic options, change the energy grid. Maybe they dont go as far as you want, but you dont spell out your own solutions, which I suspect would be in fantasy land.

7226. nigelj at 07:26 AM on 4 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      frawhi24 @18

      "We also found, as the film underscores again and again, that the intermittency of sunshine and wind is a real problem—one that can only be solved with energy storage (batteries, pumped hydro, or compressed air, all of which are costly in money and energy terms); or with source redundancy (building way more generation capacity than you’re likely to need at any one time,"

      A stand alone wind / solar grid reliant purely on storage is currently expensive, but those storage costs have been on a falling trajectory and will fall further and we know whats plausible and what the limiting factors are so can be realistic. Also look at the costs of wind and solar power compared to the alternatives (eg in the Lazard Analysis) and you could do a considerable 'over build' and still be economic.

      The other alternative is just to accept some gas fired backup power and this means you need much less storage. We know the maths of this and its economic. The Texas electricity market already approximates this model. And this is still a lot better than burning fossil fuels. You could aslo sequester the CO2 emissions underground, but I dont know the economics of that.

      I wouldn't count out nuclear power either. It may have a role to play.

      Essentially Heinberg and Fridley have not properly considered all the options, and are exaggerating the problem.

      "Altogether, the only realistic way to make the transition in industrial countries like the US is to begin reducing overall energy usage substantially, eventually running the economy on a quarter, a fifth, or maybe even a tenth of current energy."

      No doubt we can get energy use to be more efficient but expecting to get it 1000% more efficient is magical thinking, and expecting people to go cold in winter is crazy thinking. You have to base decisions on realistic estimates and predictions of whats achievable.

7227. gerontocrat at 04:33 AM on 4 May 2020
      A leading scientist's transition from climate science to solutions
      

      Making an indidivual commitment to reduce one's carbon footprint can be effective. You can use the same methodology as used in the models to track the progress of covid-19. Simply put, if the ratio R, which is the average number of peple infected by one person, is greater than 1, the covid-19 universe expands.

      If an individual person's commitment to reduce her or his carbon footprint persuades on average more than one person to do likewise (i.e. R >1), then the universe of low carbon expands.

      That is one of the main reasons why Elon Musk does not need to advertise Tesla electric vehicles ("I want one too!").

      Sometimes, you see it on a street where once one roof has gone solar, the rest of the street follows.

      Mind you, Prometheus, we are in far worse trouble than you thought.

      Behavioural science?

7228. michael sweet at 04:33 AM on 4 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      Frawhi24@18,

      When I Googled Heinberg and Fridley I ended up here at a white paper by Heinberg.  I note that this paper is not peer reviewed.  I noticed that 29 out of 30 references appeared to be to popular press articles and only one was to a peer reviewed publication.  The one peer reviewed publication was mis-interpreted in the document.  The other 3 links I tried were not functional.

      Heinburg seems to me to have a preconcieved notion of what is correct.  Perhaps if he read more of the peer reviewed literature and less popular press, he would have a different attitude.

      I have written a summary of the peer reviewed paper Smart Energy Europe which deals with most of the issues Heinburg raises.  I will submit that summary next week to SkS.  While it will be easier to generate All Energy using renewable energy if consumption of energy is reduced, current peer reviewed research indicates that it will be possible to supply estimated future energy needs using renewable energy at a reasonable cost.

7229. One Planet Only Forever at 01:49 AM on 4 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      frawhi24 @18,

      Thank you for pointing to Heinberg's defense of the film (not really a review, since he participated in its creation).

      What stands out to me is the correctness of the need to dramatically reduce the amount of energy used per-person to live a Good Life. What also stands out is the way that the movie and Heinberg fail to investigate the ability of renewables to provide all of that reduced energy demand.

      It appears that the defense of the lack of serious consideration of the renewable solution is "The Cost". That is an unjustified basis for Leadership actions when there is an "understood level of risk of harm".

      The global community has established the "understood level of risk of harm, open to correction and improvement if good justification is provided". It is ideally less than 1.5 C global warming impact, with an identified maximum impact level of 2.0 C.

      As a Structural Engineer I am well aware that when there is an identified limit on negative impacts, failure of a structure to perform acceptably, there is no allowed compromise of that safety performance limit just because of "Cost". Cost savings are not allowed to compromise the meeting of the identified requirements.

      So the delays of corrective action by the richest is clearly an unacceptable behaviour. And claiming Cost as the reason to not meet and beat the identified minimum safe performance limit of harm becomes understood to be absurd.

      What needs to become the Common Sense Understanding is the unacceptability of any of the richer people failing to expand their awareness and improve their understanding to help achieve and improve on all of the Sustainable Development Goals, and failing to help others better understand and be less harmful, more helpful. And meeting the identified limit of climate change impact is crucial because more climate change impact makes it harder to achieve the other SDGs.

      The entire group of the richest need to be required to correct their behaviour and set the example of the ways of living that everyone else should aspire to develop to. The belief that "only those who care need to be helpfully acting better" needs to end. Maintaining higher status should be dependent on proving that the higher status person is more helpful and not harmful to any others.

      That leads to the required Common Sense that all competitors for status need to be Governed by expanded awareness and improved understanding applied to help achieve sustainable improvements for the future of all of humanity on this only planet known to be habitable by humanity, and potentially habitable for the next 1 billion years ... Maybe Only One Planet - Potentially Habitable Almost Forever.

      I strongly recommend that everyone become very familiar with Two Things (equally important to better understand both - and it does not matter which is better understood first, because constantly pursuing expanded awareness and improved understanding is what is required):

      • The ways and means of misleading marketing presented in "Making Sense of Climate Science Denial". Review the many articles shared on SkS related to content of the MOOC, or complete the MOOC.
      • Review the Sustainable Development Goals of complete the related "Age of Sustainable Development" MOOC.

      Then a person can more successfully critically watch the movie and read any article or "Review".

7230. frawhi24 at 00:40 AM on 4 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      For those interested in a more balanced critique of the film, I recommend a review by Richard Heinberg in Resilience. Heinberg, who was featured as an expert witness in the film.

      On the pro side, Richard taps into research he did with David Fridley of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to assess the prospects for a complete transition to solar and wind power. Criticism of renewables was a prominent feature of the film. Here's what Richard wrote in his review:

      "We [Heinberg and Fridley] found that the transition to renewables is going far too slowly to make much of a difference during the crucial next couple of decades, and would be gobsmackingly expensive if we were to try replacing all fossil fuel use with solar and wind. We also found, as the film underscores again and again, that the intermittency of sunshine and wind is a real problem—one that can only be solved with energy storage (batteries, pumped hydro, or compressed air, all of which are costly in money and energy terms); or with source redundancy (building way more generation capacity than you’re likely to need at any one time, and connecting far-flung generators on a super-grid); or demand management (which entails adapting our behavior to using energy only when it’s available). All three strategies involve trade-offs. In the energy world, there is no free lunch. Further, the ways we use energy today are mostly adapted to the unique characteristics of fossil fuels, so a full transition to renewables will require the replacement of an extraordinary amount of infrastructure in our food system, manufacturing, building heating, the construction industry, and on and on. Altogether, the only realistic way to make the transition in industrial countries like the US is to begin reducing overall energy usage substantially, eventually running the economy on a quarter, a fifth, or maybe even a tenth of current energy.
      Is it true that mainstream enviros have oversold renewables? Yes. They have portrayed the transition away from fossil fuels as mostly a political problem; the implication in many of their communications is that, if we somehow come up with the money and the political will, we can replace oil with solar and continue living much as we do today, though with a clear climate conscience. That’s an illusion that deserves shattering. "

      On the con side, Heinberg writes --
      "The film is low on nuance, but our global climate and energy dilemma is all shades of gray. Gibbs seems to say that renewables are a complete waste of time. I would say, they are best seen as a marginal transitional strategy for industrial societies. Given climate change and the fact that fossil fuels are depleting, finite resources, it appears that if we want to maintain any sort of electrical energy infrastructure in the future, it will have to be powered by renewables—hydro, wind, or solar. As many studies have confirmed, the nuclear power industry has little realistic prospect of revival. The future will be renewable; there simply isn’t any other option.

      What is very much in question, however, is the kind of society renewable energy can support."

      Heinberg also felt the harsh criticism of McKibben was undeserved.

7231. barryn56 at 14:17 PM on 3 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      Climate change IS the default solution, since humans insist on individual 'freedom' above all else, and no-one wants to give up on the status quo (including everyone here, apparently), there's no need to do anything, because - if climate change predictions come to fruition, the human population will collapse, and everything will be fine.

7232. Philippe Chantreau at 13:11 PM on 3 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      Not to be pedantic Ubrew but the 1st law is: "You have to play." 2nd: "You can't win." 3rd "You can't break even."

7233. nigelj at 12:59 PM on 3 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      The trouble is all about the term sustainability and how we define it. The only thing that is truly 100% sustainable for eternity is something like hunter gatherer culture or very simple farming,  which treads lightly on the environment and uses only things that regenerate forever like trees, and  not metals or fossil fuels (all of which could run out in theory). This is sustainability reduced down to something we cannot get below, unless we obliterate the human race.

      But it just doesnt make a whole lot of sense to abandon our civilisation to live like primitives and to stop using the wide range of resources that we have. And 7.6 billion humans burning wood to survive would wipe out our forests.

      So as humans the best we can probably do is try to be more sustainable than we are, use materials sensibly, not waste things,  and solve the most pressing problems.  We can obviously do more to conserve the environment. The UN development goals are a good practical guide.

      So in choosing energy resources its about the lesser of the evils, and renewable energy and perhaps nuclear power fit that definition. Gibs, the brains behind the documentary, hasn't thought things through.

7234. ubrew12 at 10:40 AM on 3 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      1st law of thermodynamics "You can't win".  2nd law "You can't even break even"

      Ubrew's correlaries: 1st law "Every bit of energy you use comes from your environment"  2nd law: "Yeah, it hurts your environment"

      Jeff Gibbs movie belabors something we all knew: we lean on our environment for everything we produce.  Unhappily for Gibbs, there isn't a smidgen of non-fossil energy that claims otherwise.

      I'm deeply moved by what fossil fuel burning is going to do to the coral reefs, the rainforests, and the polar bears.  But I'm a climate activist for what it's about to do to us mere humans.  For starters, its going to destroy many of our most cherished historical cities.  Against this, should we really dismiss 'Plan B' because it has 'sinned' against our environment?  Since I used a toilet today, go ahead and dismiss me as well, by that standard.

7235. dannyvocal at 08:07 AM on 3 May 2020
      Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
      

      I have no difficulty in understanding the critiques of many quacky practices, but the question of what to eat, including the morality of one's diet, is much more difficult as there are many conflicting arguments.  Even science based organizations like the American Dietetic Association, will tout the benefits of vegetarianism, as long as the eater does not neglect B12 and the 9 essential amino acids.  Environmental writer George Monbiot of the UK paper The Guardian (https://www.monbiot.com/2018/04/03/the-day-i-became-a-vegan/) says that becoming a vegan will save the planet.  Reading your statistics above leads to more questions than answers - for example, while stating that animal husbandry only contributes 9% of carbon dioxide, you then go on to state that the greenhouse effect is 20 times stronger for methane than for carbon dioxide.  20 times seems a rather large number, one of such magnitude that it would be difficult to argue that the 1.5 billion cows raised only for meat are not competing rather heftily with the 60% of carbon dioxide caused by the belching of cars, trucks and factories.  Monbiot also states that food companies are now using bacteria to generate believable steaks, sausages and fish.  I can believe that, given how realistic the plant-based burgers are becoming.  While I haven't yet found a plant-based milk that enhances my tea, the plant-based chives cream cheese I just bought is absolutely delish!   There are always problems I have found with people's arguments - the mere fact of making an argument means it is not going to be: "the benefits of this are... and the costs of this are...." - especially when it comes to a problem as severe as climate change.  I also privately (as I never feel sufficiently armed with data to make almost any argument convincing) wonder if the liberal opposition to nuclear power is not also contributing to climate change.  I am a liberal myself but I also know from psychology that liberals and conservatives each have their own biases.  While I am very aware of how the Trump administration is dismantling all environmental laws, would the considerable influence of anti-nuclear energy among liberals which has for real hindered its research and development in Germany, UK, and the States during the Clinton Administration, not mean that liberals also contributed a great deal to existing climate change at a time (25 years ago) when we could have easily slid from non-renewables to nuclear (and the nuclear being developed at the time was nothing like Chernobyl reactor, it was the Integral Fast Reactor - one of the best books on that is from one of the scientists decommissioned by the Clinton administration (http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/P4TP4U.pdf).  I know that has nothing to do with diet, but I make this point as with so many people making arguments for and against important positions like vegetarianism/veganism, we must each take our stands in the direction we believe the data support.   I think for many vegetarians, giving up meat, as long as they are not excessively narcissistic and self-righteous about it, is a private decision made against the excessively consumerist culture, like replacing our cars with bicycles, practicing minimalism with our possessions, or even using one's typewriter when powering up the PC is unnecessary.

7236. bjchip at 07:56 AM on 3 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      Renewables do not resolve the problem.  Nuclear does not resolve the problem. No single answer resolves the problem and the use of "Capitalism" guarantees that the problem will not be resolved.   I managed to watch a fair bit of it.   It is flawed, but not the horrendous thing that some people here seem to think. 

      I know that Ivanpah had teething problems and that they were ultimately resolved.  The film is misleading about that, clearly showing someplace else to declare it a disaster.  I almost stopped with that because I've followed Ivanpah's struggle - but the fragility of a renewables-only infrastructure is not imaginary and not merely something that was true in the past.  The difficulty of getting electric vehicles to replace cars and trucks but retaining the way we use cars and trucks, is well understood.  The environmental cost of the elements and chemical processes that go into the batteries and the cells, and the 25 year lifetimes of the cells, are all too real. 
      
      
      

       

       

      The three smallest wedges here have to replace half of the 3 largest wedges - in 10 years.  That isn't going to happen.  THAT is what I see as one of the messages that is quite real in this film. 

      The problem of intermittency is not resolved by any amount of hand-waving.  It requires hard engineering to store energy effectively and it is going to require immense changes to our 24/7 culture as well as abandoning entirely the notion that "growth" is the sacrament that mainstream economics and consumer capitalism make it.

      "The film suggests that because no source of energy is perfect, all are bad"

      I didn't see that.  I saw some fairly pointed minor criticisms of specific tech.  I didn't see "nothing works".  A lot of popular answers won't. 

      Some see the film's central point as "we cannot use technology to get us out of a jam that technology created in the first place". This is an attractive sound bite and it isn't true.  It is one of several flaws in the film.  

      We can't keep our current economic and social systems and we are going to have to live differently, if we want to retain human civilization.  That is what I think the film really intended to point out and it is actually a very pointy point.

      We need all of every possible source of non-CO₂ emitting energy we can obtain.  We need the Germans to reverse their anti-nuclear stance and the New Zealanders to make it clear that nuclear power is acceptable for shipping to New Zealand.   We need massive electrification of rail - which doesn't require any batteries to work - to replace as much of our long haul trucking as we can.   We need answers from real engineers rather from enthusiasts and cheerleaders - and we need to accept that we are going to have to change a hell of a lot about the way we live over the next few decades. 

      The Coronavirus has taught us is that we need to work together to solve the big problems.  Maybe we will. 

       

       

       

7237. nigelj at 06:59 AM on 3 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      Joe Wiseman @7

      "So Michael has fallen victim to that most powerful of human attributes - greed."

      How do you conclude that? The impression I get is he has  let his anti capitalist tendences get out of control. He has talked about billionaire capitalists profiting from renewables in disparaging terms. His solutions are to have fewer children and consume a lot less less energy. I would be interested to see if he lives by these principles. People who preach need to practice their principles if they want credibility.

      "I mistakenly thought of him (Michael Moore) as "one of the good guys."

      I understand what you mean. I saw his Bowling for Columbine about mass shootings and gun control (or lack of) in the USA, and it was entertaining and moving, and made a powerful point about the problems, but it was full of huge distortions. It could not really be called a documentary. M Moore gets his facts wrong and exaggerates and so he plays into the hands of his critics I think. Looks like hes done the same with this latest documentary on energy systems.

7238. One Planet Only Forever at 06:20 AM on 3 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      I find it tragic that "Proponents of one of the many sub-sets of required corrections of developed human activity" fail to acknowledge the diverse collected understanding in the Sustainable Development Goals, all of which needs to be achieved and can be improved upon. An economy driven to be comprised of the most sustainable and least harmful activities has the best chance of "Getting Better Sustainably". All other economic developed activity is destined to end, some of it very tragically ending after doing much harm before it is ended.

      But I agree that a fundamental problem is the more fortunate people who do not wish to lose perceptions of status that they would lose if the required corrections were successfully rapidly pursued. They are the portion of the population the future of humanity would be better without.

      The SDGs were published in 2015. And every advocate of one of the many required changes should embrace and support the entire understanding of the SDGs, or expand and correct the SDGs with detailed independently verifiable justification.

      This movie indeed appears to have been started in the past without any effort put into checking if it was Out of Date in any way. The lack of interest in pursuing expanded awareness and improved understanding to help develop sustainable improvements for humanity is tragically popular.

7239. william5331 at 06:07 AM on 3 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      More than monumentally wrong.  Most of the manufacturing processes to produce wind turbines and solar panels use electricity as their energy source and the greater the proportion of renewable energy in the mix the lower the amount of fossil fuel that is used in their production.  In other words, we are using fossil fuel to wean ourselves off fossil fuel.  As it should be. Incidentally, work is being done on using Hydrogen to reduce iron ore rather than coking coal.  If this works out, another tranch of fossil fuel use disappears from the production of wind turbines. 

7240. RedBaron at 03:01 AM on 3 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      @8,

      You are right, without changing agriculture it is impossible, but the flaws in the movie suround energy tech mostly

7241. Ellesmere at 02:00 AM on 3 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      While the author offers many valid criticisms of the movie, I believe Planet of The Humans addresses a far wider concern than simply a necessary reduction in fossil fuel emissions.

      We can blame the filmmakers for begin overly ambitious or impractical in their underlying message. Yet, it's undeniable that more fundamental solutions are needed to save our planet's once-diverse ecosystems, from continued degradation from all forms of development - green technology included.

7242. Joe Wiseman at 23:35 PM on 2 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      So Michael has fallen victim to that most powerful of human attributes - greed. Whether for money and/or glory, the result is the same. Another dent in the defenses of already fragile eco-systems. I mistakenly thought of him as "one of the good guys."

7243. J1mB0b at 22:15 PM on 2 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      This film is far from climate denial. It clearly says we are changing our climate. I agree the mistakes, old info and missinformation are unforgivable but the general idea that too many humans consume too much is truth. Typical Moore sensationalism. Pretty badly made film too imo

7244. Prometheus 1962 at 21:59 PM on 2 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      "the film presents one biased perspective via carefully chosen voices, virtually all of whom are comfortable white men."

      I agree with almost all of the article's points, but why the need for this ad hominem? Many advocates of green energy are "comfortable white men" too. Does that mean they're not trustworthy either? Of course not! All this comment does is cast doubt on the rest of the article, making me want to re-read it in case the writer threw in some other fallacy that I might have missed.

      Just avoid sophistry, stick to the facts, and we're all better-off.

7245. Eclectic at 21:55 PM on 2 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      Gwsb @3 :-

      <" ... by power plants using natural gas the amount of CO2 released for generating electricity is reduced by more than 50%. Isn't that great? ">

      Okay . . . and then what?

      Gwsb, I'm not sure how much irony you're using.

      Let's have a look at an analogy :-

      ~ Instead of a daily beating, you now only beat your wife three days a week. Isn't that great?

      Irony, or ironical sarcasm?

7246. GwsB at 21:18 PM on 2 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      Both Michael Moore and the environmentalists seem to believe that one should use pictures and cherries to convince as many people as possible. Michael Moore is quite good at that. So he forces environmentalists to defend their position and to use arguments. That is fair isn't it. So where are the real convincing arguments?

      Let me give an example: In 2018 natural gas accounted for more kWh of electricity in the US than did coal, but it released less than half the amount of CO2. See https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 By replacing all coal fired power plants by power plants using natural gas the amount of CO2 released for generating electricity is reduced by more than 50%. Isn't that great?

7247. nigelj at 09:06 AM on 2 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      "The film suggests that because no source of energy is perfect, all are bad, thus implying that the very existence of human civilization is the problem while offering little in the way of alternative solutions."

      Exactly. I suspect this is all because the films producers clearly hate industrial society, and capitalism and allegedly horrible billionaires that 'profit' from renewables. But it makes no sense to start criticising renewables, because capitalists will keep on building more fossil fuels and profiting from that. Moore and Gibs have shot themselves in their own feet in spectacular fashion.

      Sure we need to improve capitalism, or find an alternative, but that is no easy task and will take time, so can't be a precondition to solving the climate problem.

7248. abostrom at 08:41 AM on 2 May 2020
      Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
      

      How disappointing that Moore could be so careless. Nuff said by me.  

7249. nigelj at 08:00 AM on 2 May 2020
      Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
      

      Pete @22

      I like to think I'm a realist. Mitigating climate change obviously wont be easy.

      I agree to the extent we should use the earths resources as sparingly as possible, and minimise waste and we should accept gdp growth cannot continue forever. But I wont be adopting a very basic hair shirt lifestyle either. It doesn't make sense to me because this sort of low tech self flaggelation approach causes problems, and only delays the point where future generations run short of some things, so I support building renewable energy.

7250. Pete19387 at 02:43 AM on 2 May 2020
      Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
      

      Thanks nigelj and Eclectic for the good points.

      nigelj, you appear to be an optimist. Perhaps I’m a pessimist, but I think I’m a realist.

      It may theoretically be possible to totally transform our energy systems in the next 30 years but, for the most part, society doesn’t even see the need, let alone the urgency to do so. My point, and I think the major point of the film, is that there is this magical thinking that by simply switching to renewable energy sources we can continue to grow, consume, and carry on as we always have. It’s a soothing message—and one many of the major green groups have bought into—that all we need is a little relatively-painless tinkering with the technology. (I have been a supporter of, and volunteer with, numerous environmental and conservation groups over the years, and I continue to be involved. These days I mostly donate to groups that don’t have charitable status and thus are free to critique and criticize society's sacred cows.)

      As critical as the climate change issue is, I would argue that we have even more immediate and pressing issues including the loss of biodiversity, the degradation of soils and farm lands, and the contamination and loss of fresh water. I am concerned about the unintended consequences of another mad dash for resources like lithium and rare-earth metals to feed our latest technological lurch. (Are there even enough of these relatively rare resources to feed our insatiable appetite?)

      Having said that, I’ll 100% agree that renewable sources are better than fossil fuels, and that more renewable sources are better than fewer. My main concern is that society is not even having the conversation about the tradeoffs involved. Rather, the assumption is that we can just engineer our way out the trouble we’re in and carry on as if nothing has changed. But what if the engineering and tinkering are wholly inadequate? Should we continue down this unsustainable path? Who gains and who loses by the choices we are making? Society should be having a conscious conversation about where we’re going. Right now, we’re on autopilot.

      To answer your question nigelj, I quite like technology and industry. I have a STEM background, and I’m fascinated and impressed by our cleverness and technology. I like driving my car, using the latest gadgets, flying all over the world on vacation, having fresh food all winter long, and getting wine shipped in from literally the other side of the world. But I’m also cognizant of the dangers, costs, and unsustainably of this way of life, and I’m trying to reduce my impact. I’m also a passionate lover of wildlife, and remote and wild places, and I feel heartsick to see the wild disappearing before my eyes. (As Steve McQueen is reported to have said, “I’d rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on earth.”)

      I’ve always said that our two biggest “environmental” problems are organized religion (humans are “special” and superior to the rest of “creation”), and capitalism (infinite growth in a finite world).

Prev  137  138  139  140  141  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  149  150  151  152  Next